Revel F35 Speaker Review

[stunta]

I am curious, if these measure so well, what would be the point of going with the new beryllium tweeters?

 

[MZKM]

Yeah, this formula either doesn't work as had been hoped, or something else is going on. Maybe bias against $118/pair speakers? Doesn't seem to be the case for $300/pair LSR305's.

As more testing is done, this formula looks more and more suspect. The big question is why of course as I don't doubt it matched results from Harman's work. Is Harman leaving something else out or what?

Compare their Spinoramas and point out which major differences you see.

As stated multiple times, stuff like max SPL isn’t a factor, Amir stated the Pioneers fell apart when playing loud bass.

I’ve been adding the impedance and distortion graphs to my spreadsheets, as that also gives you a good amount of information.

 

[Bear123]

Yes but have you ever HEARD differences between speakers EQed the same (or not at all)?
While you definitely can when the EQ applied differ.

Well, I eq my L/R speakers differently , which results in them being eq'd the same if that makes sense. I don't want my L/R to sound different.
They should sound the same. Without eq in my room, they don't, since their frequency response is different from L to R at low frequencies. I don't eq at all above 500 Hz as the room doesn't affect the response much if at all above this point. By applying different eq to each speaker below 500 Hz, it makes the frequency response as similar as possible down to where I crossover to my subs. This causes them to sound as similar as possible, which is the goal for high fidelity sound reproduction. IMO.

And yes, I have listened to my speakers full range without eq. Full range with eq. And crossed over to subs with and without eq. Not extensively, as I have no real interest in low fidelity. *By far* the best sound is of course crossed over to subs with eq below 500 Hz. I also use DEQ which for me provides a huge benefit in sound quality since I often listen at low volumes.

 

[spacevector]

We could do our own listening tests but boy is that a big effort to get enough data points. And with this virus going around, no way to even get started on it.

Why obviously you need to work on a cure first then. All I'm hearing is excuses Amir.

 

[MZKM]

So is there more being left unsaid by Harman? Their sudden reluctance to share with Amir seems like it might be.

Likely just Samsung showing their influence.

 

[Shazb0t]

I am curious, if these measure so well, what would be the point of going with the new beryllium tweeters?

There are other factors than frequency response. Distortion, impulse response, etc.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Compare their Spinoramas and point out which major differences you see.

As stated multiple times, stuff like max SPL isn’t a factor, Amir stated the Pioneers fell apart when playing loud bass.

I’ve been adding the impedance and distortion graphs to my spreadsheets, as that also gives you a good amount of information.

Well falling apart on loud bass might confirm it. That would be one of the things Harman left out. Make sure your speakers being compared by the formula don't get overloaded in use. I'm also thinking of how Amir responded to the R3 and Genelec vs other speakers he preferred considering the scores they received using the predictive formula. And how he thought more of them (R3 and Genelec) once he EQ'd them.

These speaker threads are large enough I don't always keep up. Maybe it has been done. Does EQ on the R3 and Genelec result in a set of spin results that would score them even higher in the formula?

Oh, and I want to make it clear how much I value the work you and others are doing providing us with the other graphs and data sets. It is a big plus to the forum.

 

[Koeitje]

There are other factors than frequency response. Distortion, impulse response, etc.

And SPL probably (technically that is also distortion...but okay)

So, these scored a mere 0.06 above the $118/pair Pioneer SP-BS22-LR, a pair of speakers where a number of owners chimed in to express how little they liked them. Hmm.

Doesn't take into account how loud you can play them. Those Pioneers will break apart at low SPL levels.

 

[MZKM]

Well falling apart on loud bass might confirm it. That would be one of the things Harman left out. Make sure your speakers being compared by the formula don't get overloaded in use. I'm also thinking of how Amir responded to the R3 and Genelec vs other speakers he preferred considering the scores they received using the predictive formula. And how he thought more of them (R3 and Genelec) once he EQ'd them.

These speaker threads are large enough I don't always keep up. Maybe it has been done. Does EQ on the R3 and Genelec result in a set of spin results that would score them even higher in the formula?

Oh, and I want to make it clear how much I value the work you and others are doing providing us with the other graphs and data sets. It is a big plus to the forum.

The formula is only looking at frequency response, so if you EQ it the score will of course go up. The issue is you can’t just make it perfect, it would have to be a realistic EQ, and even then that’s EQ’ing anechoic data, not your in-room response/experience, which doesn’t just deal with Time 0, but reverberation as well.

 

[tuga]

Well the whole, unexpected result of their work, was how rather predictable across various factors and listeners speaker preference was in their testing. That such info about what preference pointed toward allowed them to engineer speakers which would give excellent performance at any given price and level of use. The results of their work in their speakers sure seemed to bear that out.

So is there more being left unsaid by Harman? Their sudden reluctance to share with Amir seems like it might be.

Is the variability of preference a bias related thing when you know the speaker in use? That would fit with lots of other data. It doesn't however seem to fit with the Klippel based data all that well.

All good questions.
From where I'm standing there seems to be a bit too much reliance on the preference research which goes against mine and probably your own observation of many an audiophile's behaviour including our own, at least judging from your comments in the Popular Hi-Fi's subjective evaluation of 30 speakers topic.

I find the Klippel data extremely useful, but not the preference ratings nor Amir's or anyone else's subjective assessments on sound quality.

To me the preference ratings are a bit of a marketing gimmick... And as far as I can see it's more likely that audiophiles will give preference to opinions coming from the likes of Gutenberg, Darko, Fremmer or Dudley than a "measure-ist", rational approach.

 

[bobbooo]

Sure, but are you implying that a large number of people spent money for the privilege of being able to trash a speaker? I was surprised by how few of the speaker's owners defended it, which is what you typically see from people who enjoy something.

Post-purchase rationalization (aka choice-supportive bias) is usually greater the higher the cost of the the purchase, likely working in tandem with the sunk loss fallacy and pricing bias (falsely equating price with quality). As that video shows, part of the 'enjoyment' of a purchase can literally come directly from the price you paid for it, via stimulating the reward center of the brain, a process entirely independent of the quality of the product (specifically in our case the quality of speaker sound reproduction). Sighted listening is susceptible to a multitude of other subconscious biases that can influence the 'enjoyment' of a speaker, that have nothing whatsoever to do with sound quality.

 

[amirm]

To me the preference ratings are a bit of a marketing gimmick... And as far as I can see it's more likely that audiophiles will give preference to opinions coming from the likes of Gutenberg, Darko, Fremmer or Dudley than a "measure-ist", rational approach.

What preference? I watch a ton of speaker reviews online these days and none of it makes any sense. Try to summarize a single one for me and you will fail. "It has great highs but not a detail king. The mids are great but a bit recessed. Soundstage is huge but not front to back." Their basis for evaluation is so weak, and so biased to say positive things to keep the loan program going that they make no sense.

 

[napilopez]

Yeah, this formula either doesn't work as had been hoped, or something else is going on. Maybe bias against $118/pair speakers? Doesn't seem to be the case for $300/pair LSR305's.

As more testing is done, this formula looks more and more suspect. The big question is why of course as I don't doubt it matched results from Harman's work. Is Harman leaving something else out or what?

I actually disagree - Looking at the overall picture of the measurements I'm inclined to think the formula is working pretty well. I don't think they can or should be tied too closely to the impressions of one listener but overall the ones that measure poorly don't sound great and the ones that measure decently do. This is the expected result. AFAIK there hasn't been a speaker with terrible measurements that sounded great to Amir, and again, it's the impression of one listener.

Obviously though, I don't doubt Harman looks at far more things when designing their speakers than whatever has the best preference score. I mean, as far as I know, there's no reason to believe they actually calculate the preference score when designing new speakers - it's all about the blind tests.. But the principles are there.

Edit: Perhaps more important to me personally, the preference scores correlate quite closely with my interpretations of the data.

I play this little game now of guessing preference ratings based on the measurements, and I've gotten pretty good at it. And with one exception (the Harbeth), they're pretty in line with measurements I'd consider being great, good, decent, meh, or bad.

 

[tuga]

What preference? I watch a ton of speaker reviews online these days and none of it makes any sense. Try to summarize a single one for me and you will fail. "It has great highs but not a detail king. The mids are great but a bit recessed. Soundstage is huge but not front to back." Their basis for evaluation is so weak, and so biased to say positive things to keep the loan program going that they make no sense.

I haven't read a review in ages.

Someone else's opinion is useless, nothing more than teleshopping. Just like the preference rating. Taste is personal and non-transmissible. It may or may not fit in with the crowd. Some subjectivists say that they choose reviewers whose taste they identify with; it's nonsense.

My approach for over a decade now has been is to learn how to read measurements and try to correlate them with listening as well as possible. And to educate myself on some of the basic tech.
As for preference I have my own.

 

[bobbooo]

The problem with the Pioneers is the 4" mid/low driver severely limits maximum output and bass is missing. They are probably good for a desktop setup, but 7' away they did nothing for me.

The Pioneers have exactly the same -6dB low frequency extension point as these Revel F35s (56Hz). Max output of course may be quite a bit lower, which could explain why some people who listen at loud volumes would not find them adequate.

 

[oivavoi]

I haven't read a review in ages.
[... ]
My approach for over a decade now has been is to learn how to read measurements and try to correlate measurement them with listening as well as possible. And to educate myself on some of the basic tech.

Same.

 

[tuga]

I actually disagree - Looking at the overall picture of the measurements I'm inclined to think the formula is working pretty well. I don't think they can or should be tied too closely to the impressions of one listener but overall the ones that measure poorly don't sound great and the ones that measure decently do. This is the expected result. AFAIK there hasn't been a speaker with terrible measurements that sounded great to Amir, and again, it's the impression of one listener.

Obviously though, I don't doubt Harman looks at far more things when designing their speakers than whatever has the best preference score. I mean, as far as I know, there's no reason to believe they actually calculate the preference score when designing new speakers - it's all about the blind tests.. But the principles are there.

It would be interesting to put some sales numbers behind these speakers.

Amir owns Revel speakers and has been exposed to Harman listening training. He is obviously very knowledgeable on their research and design principles. It is not mere coincidence that his impressions match the "formula".

Now go over to an analogue/vintageist forum or a pure subjectivist agora and find out how many own wave-guided speakers with a flat response. They do prefer this kind of speaker but they just don't know it...

 

[MZKM]

I actually disagree - Looking at the overall picture of the measurements I'm inclined to think the formula is working pretty well. I don't think they can or should be tied too closely to the impressions of one listener but overall the ones that measure poorly don't sound great and the ones that measure decently do. This is the expected result. AFAIK there hasn't been a speaker with terrible measurements that sounded great to Amir, and again, it's the impression of one listener.

Obviously though, I don't doubt Harman looks at far more things when designing their speakers than whatever has the best preference score. I mean, as far as I know, there's no reason to believe they actually calculate the preference score when designing new speakers - it's all about the blind tests.. But the principles are there.

Edit: Perhaps more important to me personally, the preference scores correlate quite closely with my interpretations of the data.

I play this little game now of guessing preference ratings based on the measurements, and I've gotten pretty good at it. And with one exception (the Harbeth), they're pretty in line with measurements I'd consider being great, good, decent, meh, or bad.

I’m more inclined to think of these scores like Rotten Tomatoes, where the score isn’t a rating, but a % value of mass preference; a 99% isn’t one of the best movies ever, it could be a solid 6/10, but if everyone agrees it’s a 6/10, then it is an easy movie to recommend. With a 10% rating, that means a few people gave it a positive score, not that everyone rated it terribly, most could have gave it a mediocre 4/10.

 

[napilopez]

It would be interesting to put some sales numbers behind these speakers.

Amir owns Revel speakers and has been exposed to Harman listening training. He is obviously very knowledgeable on their research and design principles. It is not mere coincidence that his impressions match the "formula".

Now go over to an analogue/vintageist forum or a pure subjectivist agora and find out how many own wave-guided speakers with a flat response. They do prefer this kind of speaker but they just don't know it...

See my edit to my earlier post:

"Perhaps more important to me personally, the preference scores correlate quite closely with my interpretations of the data.

I play this little game now of guessing preference ratings based on the measurements, and I've gotten pretty good at it. And with one exception (the Harbeth), they're pretty in line with measurements I'd consider being great, good, decent, meh, or bad. "

The funny thing is that though I think Amir's impressions roughly follow the formula, I often find myself disagreeing with him on some of the interpretations (and I think my interpretations follow the formula more closely, actually). That's the beauty of the measurements though; we have the same data to interpret as we see fit.can interpret them as we see fit.

Sales numbers are a poor way of assessing quality of course, but given how big the Harman group is, they seem to be doing pretty fine for themselves. KEF is probably the most popular brand I see in communities, which has explicitly stated they follow the Toole research in their reference series whitepapers. Polk and PSB generally seem to be in that spectrum of measurements too.

B&W and Klipsch are probably the biggest companies I can think of that seem to follow contrarian principles, but they have huge marketing machines. Mind you B&W speakers use to measure better...

 

[BYRTT]

Why is there actually no Culmulative Spectral Decay diagram in the "starting post" of the F35 review?
The resonances in the 600-1500Hz range are quite strong and affect all generated frequency response curves.

View attachment 54365

It would be important to see whether the bass reflex port would again cause massive interference (as with the JBL 705P) or whether it is a driver surround resonance, for example..

In below directivy index for F35 (red) verse M16 (black) is overlaid, it looks they kind of lost the good consentration and execution they had for filtering work acoustic slopes of M16, handover to tweeter now looks steeper for F35 and single mid woofer looks more or less get some interference disturbance from the the dual mid woofers.